Every day this heaving mass in the online sphere generates a vibrant culture of activity and statements across social media and the web — and it has only grown under the current Rodrigo Duterte regime.

The Internet is now an active sphere of political contestation. On the one hand are netizens with avowed support for the current regime, and on the other hand, are vocal online critics of the administration – and if not of the president, then definitely certain aspects of his leadership.

Each has a tendency to call the other a “yellowtard” or a “Dutertard” — branding that misses the nuances of one’s ‘political colouring’, and further polarises the ‘different other’.

A “yellowtard” denotes a supporter of the previous regime, with yellow the colour long-associated with the Aquinos. “Dutertard” refers to the rabid and fanatical supporters of the current regime.

Among the Duterte supporters who focus on the substance and achievement of the current regime, they emphasize how the president has been true to his campaign promises. They see real change underway in many areas, including peace with the radical left, reforms to labour law, passage of the Freedom of Information (FOI) bill, among others. Critics, though, point out Duterte’s bloody war on drugs, his tendency to fire back at critics, and his less than diplomatic tongue – just to name a few of his flaws.

And the online battles between those who see good, and those who see otherwise in the president or in his pronouncements, is not only strong, but widespread. Famous personalities even have aired their criticisms — with many of these observations not only widely circulated via social media, but commented on, supported, or bashed by Netizens.

But it is just how ordinary all of this is, that also makes it extraordinary.

As arguments are fought in the comment sections of online articles, and in various social media threads, we hear the average Juan de la Cruz speak. Such was not the case in the past as the top-down nature of traditional media privileged some voices over others.

Now, traditional media complements social media; news about Duterte as it is is published or aired in traditional media, also sees light in social media’s newsfeeds and is commented on by users. Traditional media and e-news articles, likewise, make good use of social media by highlighting certain comments and sentiments.

In this way, social media has opened up ways for democratic contestation. People have more ways than one to speak up, to say something, to criticise, to make a point, to deliver a “punch” to the status quo.

It’s not just by sheer number that arguments are fought. While many try to fight with good reasoning, below-the-belt comments directed against users who hold a different view are not uncommon. Discussions can be passionate. Insults may be hurled at those whose opinions may be different. The expletives even take the form of obscenities, name-calling, or, worse, death threats.

While social media may facilitate participatory democracy, it has also done another thing: it’s reflected back to Filipinos an image of their collective mind.

More than once, it has been observed that the comment sections of online content are peppered with argumentative fallacies. For instance, those who speak out against extrajudicial killings are branded by Duterte supporters as “yellow.” They are also touted as supportive of the drug lords. But in this case, one plus one does not seem to add to two.

It has been observed as well that Filipinos seemingly have difficulty detecting satirical statements, and can be too literal, that they miss the point of subtext. As one commentator has previously observed, this is indicative of the lack of nuance in some people’s thinking.

As for the killings, many supportive of the regime’s approach on the war on drugs seem to have sidelined their Christianity – the largest faith group in the nation. Many also seem to be unaware or unfazed by what the constitution says regarding the inalienable rights of the nation’s citizens—and how the current war on drugs presents a violation to those rights and the rule of law. One wonders if such popular support for the war on drugs is reflective also of self-hate, an offshoot, or an aspect of kulelat syndrome (inferiority syndrome) manifested in Filipino society’s desire to discipline itself by extreme means.

More than anything, and as many have observed, the current state of affairs is also indicative of how much the Filipinos want reform. And Duterte is seen as the embodiment of such promise after decades of Luzon-centered oligarchic rule during which not much changed in Philippine society.

Day after day, contestation is observed online. But this contestation happens against the backdrop of an offline reality where everyday politics are played out, in the urban poor communities, in the rural areas, in the streets of Manila….everywhere.

As Chantal Mouffe suggested, contestation is good for democracy. And social media presents one such platform for it. While the voices online may be agonistic, asserting their own and differing points of view, there is, somehow, vibrance to it. The voices of the people, varied and many as they are, are increasingly heard.

There is so much promise in the fact that Filipinos’ self-awareness is heightened by the Internet in general, and that social media in particular is a platform that reflects back an image of himself/herself, his predispositions, and his political mind.

Who knows, the self-reflectiveness facilitated by such platform may just be one of the many things that the Filipinos need at this point in time.

Noahlyn Maranan is a PhD student at the University of New South Wales at the Australian Defence Force Academy (UNSW Canberra)

The rise of social media means that Filipino capital, which owns the traditional media, has lost a significant amount of control of public opinion and, now, as a consequence, of the elected Government. The result has been the election to public office of a traditional pre-capitalist patron whose cynicism towards, and weak understanding of the rule of law coincides with that of the public. The irony, though, is that the popular, highly punitive attitude to non-traditional drug-trading was originally shaped by the traditional drug industries, alcohol and tobacco, in a major lobbying effort to eliminate competition. Duterte has ridden into office on the back of the hard work of those big capitalist industries in shaping public opinion to serve their interests.

As an “online” site of contestation and amplification of certain kinds of voices, I suppose it is only natural that New Mandala keep pushing the “rise of social media” as the most significant thing to happen to “democracy” since aluminum siding salesmen all bought Cadillacs.

But when the research for the PhD is done, like everyone else, the author of this piece will avoid reading the comments section of online media because what looks like “vibrancy” when you have to find significance in it begins to look like idiocy when you don’t.

While not a supporter of Duterte’s war on drugs in the Philippines – reminiscent of Thaksin’s war on drugs that many urban Thais who got to hate him supported – and his foul language towards the Pope and US President are really over the top as well, from the outside people like myself like how he is undermining the Pivot towards Asia and letting the “West” aka the US know that there are other fish in the sea as well. I don’t believe for one minute that Putin’s Russia is capable of creating 2 million jobs in the Philippines but Duterte’s refusal to confront China over issues in the South China Sea is probably a sensible strategy. No country realistically supports Philippines (why the US is not even a signatory to the Law of the Sea Convention) and Aquino was simply sparring with himself while in office. I might also add that trying to come to terms with the NPA and even Muslim separatists (without US assistance which has been largely ineffective anyway) is certainly a step in the right direction. Now if Duterte were to eventually to take on those harbingers of reaction in the Philippines such as the quasi-feudal landowning class/es and reactionary clerics and the “Matrons of Makati” that would be most interesting. Duterte is not the first President in the Philippines to abuse human rights and I guess he will not be the last either or indeed taking ASEAN as a whole where by-and-large human rights are pretty abysmal.

Did not work out so well for F Marcos when he abandoned human rights. Filipinos have got so many great and admirable traits but they have also a huge capacity for changing sides when the jack boot gets too heavy. Personally I think Duterte is mad/ insane in the literal sense and it is a disadvantage for those lovely people to be lead by someone who has no mental clarity. For those of us who traditionally challenge US Foreign Policy we should also acknowledge the other side to that coin in that Duterte would be reporting twice a day to a Japanese General in Japanese were it not for US efforts in WW2. The fact that Philippines has never had a successful military coup is definitely also attributable to American help at the right time.

Its interesting you bring up Marcos. The US was a strong supporter of Marcos during Martial Law and was kind enough to provide him safe haven when he was finally overthrown. Should Duterte and Filipinos thank the US for Marcos?